Antti Hynonen

Mr. Roy, I am not suggesting arrogance in any way. I shall rephrase. I am offering 2 possibilities as to why Mr. Shaw could have told Officer Habighorst his alias, neither has to do with arrogance. My first suggestion said, (in other words) he probably made a quick decision (answered after considering) under pressure, and didn't fully realize the implications of this until later. He may have though that he'd be protected by his lawyers and/or agency ties, if any, and that his alias would be insignificant information. Second suggestion, it might have just been a slip of the tongue (answered spontaneously, without considering), as he never expected to be arrested. Again, I'm sure he was under pressure, while under arrest and giving his personal information to the police. I believe both above scenarios are more likely than the scenario that Habighorst took a bribe and altered 5 copies of the arrest card. It is a possibilty though, but I haven't seen or heard anything that would support this. On the otherhand other information suggests that Clay Shaw did in fact convey Clay Bertrand as his alias. This reinforces the statements and questions in the initial postings of this thread, relating to Mr. Dean Andrews' phone calls and discussions of one "Clay Bertrand" requesting Andrews' to represent one Lee Oswald in the murder of the President. Coincidence that both Andrews and Shaw withdrew/denied something they had said earlier?

BK: You meant September 30th, right? Oct 30th is a Monday.

Mr. Roy, This alias statement by Clay Shaw certainly wasn't something said playfully or absent mindedly. Two other possibilities come to mind. One. Shaw revealed his alias to the officer because he thought it would be revealed by some manner sooner or later anyhow. It would be safer to be honest at this point, the CIA would sure to bail him out, would it not...??? Two. It was a pure slip of the tongue, as he was startled and didn't expect to be arrested and must have thought that his alias would not be significant in terms of incriminating him in any way. Apparently he was debriefed later (by some friends....), after his arrest and found out his alias would be key in incriminating him in the case, after all the CIA had it's insiders within Garison's team.

It may already be evident to the followers of this thread, that I do support the claims and evidence presented by Mr. Parsons. The fact that there is both physical evidence as well as (eye) witness statements supporting what took place in terms of Dean Andrews' calls, initial claims regarding Clay Bertrand etc. makes me think that the only one taking a bribe must have been the judge in the Shaw case. As far as judging the character of Jim Garrison; based on what I have read about him, he seems to have been an honest man and therefore I do find it hard to believe that he would have approached Officer Habighorst with a bribe re: the alias issue on the Clay Shaw arrest record. If there'd at least be evidence pointing to this type of bribery and it being a habit among either Garrison, Habighorst (receiving) or anyone else who was in the position to bribe Habighorts, it might make sense to consider, but thus far I haven't seen any.

Ok so, let's assume Aloyisius Habighorst was a crooked cop. Considering the importance and high profile of this case, what could motivate Aloyisius Habighorst to fraudulently alter the arrest record? If he received a bribe or a promotion, is there evidence of this?

Thank you for your input everyone. I think the bottom line are the questions; A. Did Andrews make that call and mention those names? and B. If so, was he coherent? Judging by the evidence and statements from numerous parties (including Andrews' own admissions), he did make such calls and according to hospital records he did not receive a sedative medicine dose until after the call, also in case he had received a dose of sedatives almost 24 hours before, it would have mostly worn off. (Been there done that myself). Antibiotics will not make you hallucinate and imagine things.... Whether such calls took place, could have been verified via phone company records, I believe. Since there are many witness statements regarding the call, perhaps it wasn't considered necessary. Also whether Clay Bertrand was in fact an alias for Clay Shaw, is a good question. It was in fact entered into Shaw's arrest record by Officer someone (Habigharst???). Let's asume, that at the time of the arrest Shaw didn't admit and say he used an alias of Clay Bertrand, how could the Officer have known that this was a vital piece of information that the DA wanted to have on that piece of paper and that he went ahead and broke the law and added it there himself? Why would the Officer go ahead and do something like that? What would he benefit?

Good questions. The WC team will say, he worked overtime at JCS. Well, then there's also the Irving grocery store manager, who says Oswald tried to cash a person to person check worth some 200 bucks, but he couldn't cash it for him, since it was a person to person check. Oswald also left one of his many wallets at home on the morning of 11/22/1963 and it contained some 200 bucks. So was he just unbelievably good with his money, or did he obtain some additional income from a federally funded program?

Wim, An equally fair question is, what happened to the other bullets (except the magic bullet)? Or What happened to the rest of the missing evidence? Where's JFK's brain? Where are the original photos and X-rays of the autopsy? A few comments relating to your remarks regarding the throat (entry) wound: According to a police officer there was a hole in the windshield of the limousine (which could have been in line with the throat wound), implying the bullet could have come from the south knoll. Perhaps the throat wound bullet was removed before the body came to Parkland, after all: the throat wound looked cut open/mangled compared to the way it left Parkland, the body arrived in a shipping casket and bodybag - as opposed to the ornamented bronze casket. I read somewhere of a report that one bullet was lodged in the shoulder of Kennedy. I think first and foremost the conspirators wanted Kennedy dead, a minor issue was whether the patsy would be asked about accomplices for shots from the front. I'm sure most would agree that at least some shots were fired from the back to make sure at least someone (Oswald - the patsy) could be implicated.

If this were the case, it would seem to me that "Deano" would be quite stupid. Why would he claim that "someone" had called him about this very high profile case asking him to defend the suspect. Didn't he think he might have to explain "who" had called him and retained him, if the case were to go to court? He should have also known that Lee would be, or was offered legal assistance locally through the DBA if I recall correctly. So it's pure coincidence that it just happened to be Dean Andrews who was the lawyer who came up with this wild idea, when it could have been a lawyer from anywhere in the USA? He just happened to be from New Orleans where Lee had spent the summer doing a bit of this and that and possibly associated with some characters, who would later be implicted in the Garrison case. A bit too juicy a coincidence for me to swallow. I still think Garrison was on to something. Consider the untimely deaths of David Ferrie, Eladio Del Valle, Guy Banister etc. All just coincidence.

Whether he is clutching or not, I don't know. He clearly seems to be reacting to something, such as pain, the throat seems to be the source of this pain based on the look in his face and the position of his arms. The little hole in the centerline of the throat and the opinion of the medical staff there seems to confirm that this was indeed an entry wound. Had he been struck in the back, he would have reacted differently IMO. Based on what we know about the autopsy this was not a through and through wound. The bullet was still in the body (shoulder, throat area?) at Parkland. Just think about this: Numerous professional medical staff at Parkland is working on the dying President. The immediate observations unanimously conclude the following: an exit wound in the back of the head and an entry wound in the throat. In Bethesda the autopsy team officially concludes: an entry wound to the back of the head (exit to the side of the head) and an entry wound in the back and an exit in the throat....... Basically the opposite of what Parkland concluded. Nothing fishy here, move along folks.

I looked for a thread on Dean Andrews, but could not find one. I apologize in advance, if one exists, and I missed it. Dean Andrews is the New Orleans lawyer who claimed he received a call from Clay Bertrand in the hospital asking him to represent Lee Harvey Oswald, on Nov. 23rd 1963, I believe. It is a debated issue whether Dean knew the true identity of Clay Bertrand. At one time Dean admitted he knew David Ferrie and that he had done some parole work for a friend of Ferrie's. Dean later denied knowing Clay Bertrand and that everything he said regarding Oswald and Clay Bertrand was a figment of his imagination. Why did Dean initially provide information about a phone call and later deny everything? Surely he must have had a motive to discuss this information at first and particulary when he denied everything Garrison claimed he had said? What was going on? As presented in the movie JFK (I know this may be a stretch) did the lunch and conversation between Dean Andrews and Jim Garrison take place? I wonder whether Dean actually knew the name of the "big Enchillada" or any other details, which he did not divulge?

Hi Shanet. The question is; "How did he manage frontal shots from a position behind the victim?"

Hi, Just my two cents, don't mean to jump on anyones toes! The old tramp looks like he is about 60. Holt was what? About 40 then.... There is some similarity, but IMO not Holt. One little detail, about the Barry and the boys photo. The fellow in Jacks photo comparison images does not look like Holt (IMO), and has his partition combed to the right. In the photo with Holt and daughter it is combed to the left. Also on Wim's jfkmurdersolved page on the three tramps and Chauncey Holt's photo, probably several years later, it is on the left. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lois3.htm ....bottom of page.... Assuming none of the images are flipped, the hair style doesn't match. Sure this is easy to change! Let us ask ourselves, how likely is it that one would have changed something of this nature...? Perhaps some of you have access to more photos and can make more comparisons....?

Winston MacKinley Scott In Mexico (City) from 1956-1969.... Lee Oswald was there in 1963.... I wonder if their paths crossed. What goes around comes around. http://www.namebase.org/main4/Winston-Mackinley-Scott.html

Ah yes, the timing of the releasing of evidence is crucial...

Makes me wonder if this fellow was a Lee Oswald impersonator. He's a few inches short, but of the right age for that business. Any chance of a photo of this bloke James Richards? If he's a close match, he might be our Clinton LA Oswald, which makes me wonder who this guy knew in New Orleans or otherwise with regards to the plot to frame Oswald.

To quote a fellow Forum member, that article by Paul L May = "Mierda del Toro." Ryan, to us common folks, that paper would be known as "toilet paper".

Quite so. Oswald must have also hidden the rifle after the Walker incident into the ground without slipping on a gun case or any type of cover. Must be a very reliable weapon if you can go ahead and hide it somewhere outside for 3 days, not own any rifle cleaning equipment, and then continue to use the rifle without problems.... And where was Mr. DeMohrenschildt when he asked Lee whether he shot at Walker? Check all 3 testimonies, you will find 3 different versions, including hollering the question from the staircase to sitting on the couch etc. And how many backyard photos did Marina acknowledge taking, first one, then two. It turns out some 5-6 were taken.....

Yes, absolutely. This is the way Dennis D. David recalls the (head)wounds just as Joe O'Donnell recalls them in the 1st photos he saw. Dennis David was shown JFK photos by William Bruce Pitzer. This testimony corroborates the fact that at least one other set of autopsy photos exists, and that this suggests the first set (gaping hole in the back ) is the authentic set of the 2, as that is how the numerous Parkland physicians (first to attend to JFK), nurses and others recalled the wound. Anyone still doubting a cover-up?

Excellent thread. Stephen, you raise excellent questions which reinforce the circumstances relating to how Oswald was set up. There are many inconsistencies (although minor) in the testimonies of Mr. and Mrs. DeMohrenschildt as well as Marina Oswald's as it relates to the Walker incident, the rifle and the backyard photos. As far as I know, the number plate on that photo was initially intact (as can be seen on a photo of collected evidence, taken at DPD), this implies that the number was scratched out whilst the evidence was in the custody of the DPD. It was also within the DPD that a Minox camera turned into a Minox light meter on the list of evidence. Not to mention that the Tippit murder site bullets went from Auto .38 to revolver .38, and Officer Poe's markings on the shells disappeared also. But that's another thread....

Based on my view of the Odio testimony, which I consider very reliable, I can not believe that anyone else visited the Odio house except Lee Harvey Oswald. I base this on the reaction of the Odio sisters, as they saw Lee Oswald as the man accused of killing the President. William Seymour looks about as much like Lee Harvey Oswald, as any other dude. AS to who could have been with him, I don't know. Howard and Hall are good guesses, but I do also rely on Sylvia's testimony that the individuals were "Mexican". As to the time line of events (Lee could only be in one place at one time, either Lee travelled back from Mexico to be at the Odio house on time on September 27th, 1963 or he never went to Mexico in the first place. As I recall the CIA photos of Lee Oswald in Mexico didn't quite add up either.... furthermore, paper evidence aside, do we have any relaible positive ID's of Lee Oswald in Mexico City?

I think he asked McCone, Director of CIA, that very question. See below: "Talbot says we "assert that Bobby blamed only the Mafia (and New Orleans godfather Carlos Marcello in particular) for the death of his brother," but we also detail RFK's initial suspicions directed at the CIA. This includes not only RFK asking CIA director John McCone if the CIA killed his brother, but RFK's statement to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Haynes Johnson that "one of your guys did it," just hours after JFK's murder. As the book explains, Johnson was working at the time on a book with Manuel Artime, and CIA files now show Artime was not only involved in AMWORLD but working on the CIA-Mafia plots against Castro (which involved Rosselli, Trafficante and Marcello) and that the CIA had considered using the Mafia as a cover to provide weapons to Artime as part of AMWORLD. " From the site below: http://www.dickrussell.org/articles/waldron.htm

Yes, and per one of your earlier posts, Pat; Givens was the last to see Lee before the motorcade passed the TSBD. Makes him an interesting witness. Along with Givens' testimony, I have a hard time believing the testimony of the fellows on the 5th floor, looking out the windows. I think some of them were told what to say, and as a result they had a hard time remembering what they were supposed to say. That's a different thread.

Well put. The number of "coincidences" in this case is staggering. Yet the key evidence that would once and for all put all doubts regarding this issue aside, remains hidden or destroyed. Like so many others I'd love to see the true suspects tried and hanged (might be a bit late for that....) But Stephen, this is before he had time to practise and become the most skilled shooter of all times. He sure was a straight shot on 11/22/63... ..or then he never shot anyobody.